EU proposals on the rights of victims of crime will be a Department of Justice priority under Ireland's presidency in 2013 if they are not adopted by the end of the year, the Minister for Justice has said.
Alan Shatter was speaking at a conference on the EU Directive on Victims' Rights organised by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties in Dublin earlier today.
The EU Commission published its proposals for a directive on rights, supports and protections for victims of crime in May 2011. This followed a framework decision in 2001 outlining objectives in relation to victims' rights.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, member states must opt in if they wish to be covered by laws in the area of "freedom, security and justice", and Mr Shatter said the Government had agreed to opt into the new directive. This meant Ireland could participate in the negotiations on the draft directive that had been taking place since, he said.
Among measures contained in the draft directive are the provision of information to the victim about their case and the criminal justice system; expenses relating to court proceedings, return of property retained as evidence, and the right to a decision on compensation from the offender; protection for the victim against any threat from the offender; and access to victim support services.
Mr Shatter said the directive dealt specifically with the issue of vulnerable victims. The original proposal for a directive had a three-pronged definition of vulnerable victims, based on the characteristics of the victim, the nature of the crime and the possibility of individual assessment of victims. Children and the victims of trafficking would always be defined as vulnerable.
When the draft went to the European Parliament there were numerous amendments, multiplying the categories of vulnerable victims, Mr Shatter said. "There is a likely negative impact operationally if a long list of vulnerable groups was adopted in a binding legal text," he said. Ireland would work towards a practical solution which can command consensus, but avoid a forensic inquisition of the victim which could further distress them.
"I am very enthusiastic about the EU directive on victims' rights," he said. "If it has not been brought in by the end of the year it will be a priority of the Irish presidency."
Prof Anthony Pemberton of the University of Tilburg in The Netherlands told the conference the 2001 framework decision, which was intended to harmonise victims' rights across the EU, actually widened the gap between different member states.
This arose from differences in criminal justice systems, the different role of victims in the civil law and adversarial systems, different profiles of victims, differences in the auxiliary support services across the EU and different attitudes towards law-enforcement officials, especially in the east European states.
"Where the decision was transposed the practice was poor," he said. "Most of the progress was made where victims' rights were already embedded. So the gap widened."
The effectiveness of the proposed new directive would depend on efforts after its adoption and would rely heavily on the existence of victims' champions in member states, Prof Pemberton said, adding: "The transposition into domestic law in important, but only the first step."